Personally, when I carry 10mm for self defense, I use hollow points that are "FBI weak" loadings. Privi Partisan makes them and they are dirt cheap for 10mm. They push 180 grain hollow point around 1000 FPS, so its a hair under 500FPE. it isn't much different from a hot .40 or 9mm round, its a hollow point, so less chance of over penetration, and its cheap ammo, so I have an opportunity to practice with it a lot.

Lets be honest, if you use a 230 grain hard cast lead 10mm from underwood capable of taking down a cape buffalo, the jury is gonna wonder why that is your home defense load when so many other things are on the market. The key to a self defense scenario under the law is reasonableness. If you can tell a jury that you purposely bought weak loads, I think your chances of showing the self-defense is/was reasonable is better than with big game hunting loads in the gun.

I think Ayoob's comments make complete sense--and I believe what he said is that it is a matter of the defense's skill in managing the jury's opinion. But what he also said is that there is a sense of 'reasonable' we hope prevails with the jury, and what is the powerful thing on your side is that your actions were reasonable. He gave a couple of examples I think were good ones--two cases where an innocent bystander is harmed by the shooter's decision. Since the shooting at the Aurora CO theatre here, I've spent quite a bit time wondering about what would have been reasonable action for an armed defender in a dark theatre under the circumstances, and I believe taking the shot with good reason to believe you'd make the shot would have been justifiable, even if you weren't 100% certain of what was behind your target. Reasonable risk, IN MY OPINION.

However, if the choice is between a) I stand a fairly good chance of hitting a no-shoot if I fire in self-defense, and b) if I don't shoot I'll be fired upon, then I'm going to wait until I have a more certain shot. Why? Because I'm trained, and I'm moving. The bad guy probably isnt, and his chances of hitting me are fairly small. If he's so close to me I believe his chances are near certain, then so are my chances of hitting him. So, I believe my choice would be evasive action and seek cover before attempting a shot I feel had any chance of hitting a bystander.

10mm? My opinion is, if I can't, myself, put together enough data to prove beyond a doubt that there is nothing special about this cartridge and that the facts regarding it, a 45ACP +P, and/or a .357 revolver clearly demonstrate it is no more malicious a choice than those...well, then I'm no data analyst and Powerpoint wizard.

The notion that we shoot people with the intent to do anything other than stop the fight is ridiculous, but many hold such notions--that we are able to shoot to maim, shoot to frighten, and shoot to warn. They're untrained people ignorant of the facts, and I'd try to persuade my defense that the jury needed to be educated about the content of training across the country, for law enforcement and the general public.

I believe it is Detroit that was dragged into court on the claim that the use of hollow points by its police department constituted the use of unecessary force, and my understanding is that the City lost and was prohibited from the use of HP ammo (I also believe this was at least 10 years ago and I have no idea if this is fact or not). So, juries can clearly be convinced of all sorts of nonsense.

If it's a home defense situation, then I'm not going be in court--at least not in Colorado under any circumstances I can imagine. My intruder doesn't have to be armed, doesn't have indicate he intends to do me any harm, and I'm under no obligation to prove either. I'm authorized to use deadly force, and have no obligation to retreat. However, if was I unfortunate enough to live in a state where enemies of the public masquerading as public servants were able to make a dog-and-pony show of my efforts to defend myself in my home, then I'd suggest to my defense that I could legally have chosen a shotgun for that purpose, but chose a handgun with less than half the muzzle energy instead, because I'm a nice guy, and I care.

I would like to be able to ask the Court if it would be happier had I beaten the guy to death with baseball bat or a crowbar--and if that would somehow make them feel better. I wouldn't go that way as a defense, however.

I don't think he has a law degree. His credentials come from decades of law enforcement, private study and serving as a firearm and self defense 'expert' witness in many trials. I think he's savvy enough to express his opinions on the basis of personal experience and his understanding of court decisions rather than characterizing them as pronouncements from an accredited expert in the law.

Understood. The point is, He is not a lawyer. And no one has gone after him for giving legal advices, does not mean he is qualified to do so.

Even paralegals, who have access to and laden with experience in cases, far more than him, can not give legal advices; nor can lawyer-to-be law students. Testifying in court simply does not make you a lawyer. Many people make a good living on being an expert of any field, say fertilizer, but that does not mean you're an expert of the law, nor a lawyer.

He threads the thin line between giving legal facts and legal advices. A red neck would most likely turn a presentation of legal fact into legal advice, not knowing the difference. So he is held on a pedestal in their world.

Understood. The point is, He is not a lawyer. And no one has gone after him for giving legal advices, does not mean he is qualified to do so.

Even paralegals, who have access to and laden with experience in cases, far more than him, can not give legal advices; nor can lawyer-to-be law students. Testifying in court simply does not make you a lawyer. Many people make a good living on being an expert of any field, say fertilizer, but that does not mean you're an expert of the law, nor a lawyer.

He threads the thin line between giving legal facts and legal advices. A red neck would most likely turn a presentation of legal fact into legal advice, not knowing the difference. So he is held on a pedestal in their world.

I think we all understand that. But it seems to be wise to at least listen to a person knowledgeable about legal aspects of the firearm use.

Understood. The point is, He is not a lawyer. And no one has gone after him for giving legal advices, does not mean he is qualified to do so.

Even paralegals, who have access to and laden with experience in cases, far more than him, can not give legal advices; nor can lawyer-to-be law students. Testifying in court simply does not make you a lawyer. Many people make a good living on being an expert of any field, say fertilizer, but that does not mean you're an expert of the law, nor a lawyer.

He threads the thin line between giving legal facts and legal advices. A red neck would most likely turn a presentation of legal fact into legal advice, not knowing the difference. So he is held on a pedestal in their world.

I understand what you're saying. I defend him because I think he is a credible guy with lots of experience. I also disagree with him on some subjects.

Who would you rather look to for general guidance in an open discussion like this one: Mas Ayoob or anonymous Internet 'experts'? Even some lawyers are not the experts they claim to be or are as smart as they should be.

Reputation is an indicator of one's performance over time. In my opinion, Mr. Ayoob has a solid reputation and I welcome his thoughts about SD, home security and legal exposure where firearms are involved.

Info I gather here and from other forums is 'food for thought', and nothing more. If I need legal advice, I know where to find a good lawyer.

...A solid case may be made for having chosen a hollow point bullet in almost any caliber, especially if ANY advertising claims can be found that it is suitable for self-defense...

I think this is a great suggestion!!

Does anyone have any materials (books, advertising, articles) suggesting that hot 10mm ammo (of hollow point variety) or 10mm pistols are a good option for self-defense against people (as opposed to 4-legged critters)?

Yes, at least comparing the top ten loads of each cartridge published by Hornady, 10mm comes out just 15% bigger in terms of muzzle energy. This sort of data could be used, I think, to discount the notion that 10mm is the 44 Mag of the auto-loader world. I wouldn't care about the truth any more than my prosecution does--only to the degree it helps my case, and no more.

I think a strategy and challenge would be to shoot down any silly claims that you chose a particular handgun caliber with any intent to do anything different with it than you intended to do with any other caliber you could have chosen--stop the threat with maximum probability.

But, if I could take the probability I'll ever need to draw my weapon at all, multiply by the probability I'll shoot an innocent bystander with it then multiply by the probability I'll end up in court--I think I'll worry more about getting nailed by an asteroid or what I'll do if I win Powerball given I don't buy tickets.

Yes, at least comparing the top ten loads of each cartridge published by Hornady, 10mm comes out just 15% bigger in terms of muzzle energy. This sort of data could be used, I think, to discount the notion that 10mm is the 44 Mag of the auto-loader world. I wouldn't care about the truth any more than my prosecution does--only to the degree it helps my case, and no more.

I think a strategy and challenge would be to shoot down any silly claims that you chose a particular handgun caliber with any intent to do anything different with it than you intended to do with any other caliber you could have chosen--stop the threat with maximum probability.

But, if I could take the probability I'll ever need to draw my weapon at all, multiply by the probability I'll shoot an innocent bystander with it then multiply by the probability I'll end up in court--I think I'll worry more about getting nailed by an asteroid or what I'll do if I win Powerball given I don't buy tickets.

The thing that is most scary is the jury. Just think of all those internet post in YouTube, etc. Those could be YOUR jurors!
...And, while I'm typing away here... the truth is we live in a country where a young lady can pay $200 to go have her unborn baby murdered and walk out and go have lunch...never to worry about going to court, much less prison. (no one will want to discuss that) Yet I risk doing life in prison if I shoot someone trying to steal my car with a family member inside of it or shoot someone holding my neighbor at gunpoint b/c her jealous boyfriend wants to kill her after a date with another guy. Each of those cases has a documented precedence in a state case and each have both convictions and acquittals. (pls don't ask my to give you the details...) After a true use of justified deadly force, one still needs a lot of faith, hope, and luck so as not to have their own life ruined... in court and outside of it. IMO.

The best choice for YOU is what YOU are most proficient with, but yes, all other factors being equal, a G17 is a far better weapon than a 686 and an 870 is inferior to the AR-15 for defense. If you choose them because YOU are better with them, respectively, that is a good and rational choice. If you choose an inferior weapon, especially one with which you are less proficient, simply because you're worried about what a jury might think, you are a fool.

For the short bus crowd who may not necessarily understand why short barrel revolvers and pump shotguns suck:

Short handguns in general are difficult to shoot well because of the short sight radius. A heavy DA trigger makes this more difficult. Low capacity compounds the problem further. Don't get me wrong, I often carry a 638, but it's a difficult gun to shoot well, with severe limitations.

Pump shotguns can, and often are, short stroked. If you don't believe me, attend a 3 gun match some day. Stress dramatically increases the likelihood of that. Again, low capacity is a problem. Heavy recoil makes engaging multiple targets or follow up shots much slower. Again, I own a Mossberg 500A and never camp around bears without it but it is inferior in most respects to the short barreled, suppressed AR that is my primary home defense gun.

The best choice for YOU is what YOU are most proficient with, but yes, all other factors being equal, a G17 is a far better weapon than a 686 and an 870 is inferior to the AR-15 for defense. If you choose them because YOU are better with them, respectively, that is a good and rational choice. If you choose an inferior weapon, especially one with which you are less proficient, simply because you're worried about what a jury might think, you are a fool.

For the short bus crowd who may not necessarily understand why short barrel revolvers and pump shotguns suck:

Short handguns in general are difficult to shoot well because of the short sight radius. A heavy DA trigger makes this more difficult. Low capacity compounds the problem further. Don't get me wrong, I often carry a 638, but it's a difficult gun to shoot well, with severe limitations.

Pump shotguns can, and often are, short stroked. If you don't believe me, attend a 3 gun match some day. Stress dramatically increases the likelihood of that. Again, low capacity is a problem. Heavy recoil makes engaging multiple targets or follow up shots much slower. Again, I own a Mossberg 500A and never camp around bears without it but it is inferior in most respects to the short barreled, suppressed AR that is my primary home defense gun.

Do you deliberately phrase things to engender controversy?

"but yes, all other factors being equal, a G17 is a far better weapon than a 686 and an 870 is inferior to the AR-15 for defense. If you choose them because YOU are better with them,"

It depends on what you mean by "All things be equal" and how you juggle the rules to "make them equal" and the scenario you create, which will always be skewed towards your choices. I can "make things "equal" and in my "equal" the 686 and the 870 are the perfect weapons.

The point of your missive is well and fine, but you resent your bias as fact, which undermines the point I think you were trying to make.